Printable View
I notice that the recent court cases in relation to the Sala incident have been cited as one of the reasons that City are in such financial constraints at the moment.
Did I not read that in the season of Sala's death or at least the one immediately after that the money was put aside by the club?
If so how is this still as issue if in effect we have already taken the hit and anything from here on is a bonus in that respect? Legal fees aside obviously.
I think it was accounted for on paper, but that is very different to actually handing over the cashQuote:
Originally Posted by blue lewj
Surely the club would put that money aside tho?
https://www.ifrs.org/issued-standard...%20that%20time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rjk
Contingent liability.
And it was highlighted as such in the accounts at the time was it?Quote:
Originally Posted by gabbsthenewt
The reason I ask is it has been mentioned, at least in passing by the club, as at least part of the reason for not spending money the season after we were relegated, most seasons since and is still being used as a reason why we're struggling financially.
Beg your pardon I haven't looked at the City's books for about 13 years. It would appear they have opted for prudency and booked a provision for it, as noted in note 24) Contingent Liabilities of the latest set of accounts. The provisions stands at £20.7m.Quote:
Originally Posted by blue lewj
For FFP purposes they will have taken a £15m "hit" (plus all the other related fees) in one go in the financial year he was signed in. If the player had joined then the costs would have been spread over the length of the contract. This will have been aQuote:
Originally Posted by blue lewj
significant constraint on spending while having to stay within FFP rules over the last few years.
Yeah, it's not left the club, but as good as - and the effect is just the same as if the money had gone already - so we bought him for £15m spread over time, in the hope that his football would help us afford him and keep us in the Premier and in the big bucks. The tragedy occurred and we never got to see him play for us - we've provided for the £15m we may be forced to pay in the future and as a result each time we need more money from Tan, he looks at his residual funds he's earmarked for us and he's £15m overspent to start with on what he was hoping that balance to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by blue lewj
On form today with your posts. Have you been promised ice creams and beach walks?Quote:
Originally Posted by blue lewj
😄Quote:
Originally Posted by stan butler
Just asking a question. You keep posting irrelevant things within threads buddy.
What was the reason for Sala to go back to Nantes in the first place?
I believe it was reported, to say goodbye to his team mates and friends and ensure his dog was OK. I could be wrong though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Toadstool
Regardless
Cardiff NEVER arranged Sala’s flights
Excuse the analogy but if you were to order something online and it didn’t arrive then the third party courier ultimately gets blamed.
If I paid fifteen million and my order disappeared on a flight a third party arranged then surely their insurance company coughs up.
It’s an absolute tragedy but as the ongoing court case is showing there were huge failures resulting in negligence by the plane’s owner (Henderson) and the facilitator in dodgy Willy McKay 🤔
Is it? What negligence has been shown to be made at the hand of Willie Mckay? (For the record I dislike Willie Mckay with a passion).Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunnysideup
Also Henderson wasn't the owner, not that that absolves him from a tort of negligence given the circs but just for clarity - he was the lessee operator (although he'd argue he wasn't even that!)
Yeah the owner didnt want Ibbotson flying her plane.Quote:
Originally Posted by gabbsthenewt
Its a desparately sad tale and hope the family get some justice.
The parcel didn’t arrive
Henderson was liable by employing a pilot whom he knew didn’t have the correct pilots license
He knew he couldn’t fly at night and couldn’t fly commercially
There lies the negligence
This is a total mess
If he leased the plane there’s insurance but if he’s leased the plane and lied about who exactly will be flying then that insurance company will surely void any settlement claim?
The buck stops firmly with Henderson in my eyes
Did Sala need to arrive in the stadium to become a Cardiff player though?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunnysideup
if you order something on line it's only yours when you take receipt of it.
it isn't the same with a player though, surely as soon as all parties have signed the contracts then it's done.
He came here signed the necessary, had photos with Choo and the club shirt etc, went back and it was the second time he flew in that the crash happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rjk
That is how I understand it anyway.
I dont see how this case has any bearing on us.
Its just justice for the Sala family.
I'm not so sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hilts
I'm sure the insurance companies and both clubs are watching this very closely.
Any wrongdoing that is not caused by either club will be used further down the line. I am almost sure of it.
Let's go back to the delivery analogy here.
The bloke brings it. You sign for it. He takes it back to his van to get some paperwork and drops it on the way back to your door damaging it.
Would you really have no argument with him or blame him?
It certainly has bearing with regard the ~£21m provided for in our accounts in the event that we have to pay up the Sala fees and any related obligations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hilts
Sala was lost in transit
Someone is liable 🤔
He wasn't a parcel, Nantes had no obligation to deliver him for his first day of training at his new employer, the crux of that is related to whether or not we should have paid Nantes by now; which is *sort* of a separate matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by blue lewj
I think all parties will be watching closely for the judge’s verdict
Surely who organised the transport and ultimately is responsible for all of this is exactly the issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by gabbsthenewt
If it wasn't then it would be clear if we would have have pay Nantes or not as it would be a case of the paperwork being entirely in order or not.
The fact it isn't a case of simple transfer paperwork is purely because of the crash, who organised it and if there was any wrongdoing.
You don't say :hehe::-)Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunnysideup
It's not the organiser (customer of the operator - Willie McKay) it's the expert operator ultimately responsible (DH maintains this was DI, Prosecution maintains it's DH).Quote:
Originally Posted by blue lewj
Yeah I think they might be!Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunnysideup
Surely that is what they are having these cases to decide?Quote:
Originally Posted by gabbsthenewt
You should have popped along. They would have been done by lunch on the first day.
No noone is deciding on whether Willie McKay was the operator of a plane transportation service - someone has said "Surely who organised the transport and ultimately is responsible for all of this is exactly the issue" - no liability is not with the customer of an operator - never is.Quote:
Originally Posted by blue lewj
If they meant the person responsible is the person on whose behalf the transport was organised for - also no, and in event that would have been on behalf of Sala in a personal capacity rather than as part of the football transfer.